12/09/2011: Man chooses to use his gun to make kidnapping, raping easier


But go ahead and ignore this gun owners.  It’s not your guns causing problems.  It’s only the other people with guns.  You’re doing just fine, preventing crime and all, obviously.  You’re also preventing little kids from getting shot in the head.  Oh wait…no, you’re causing that too.  See next story.

3 Responses

  1. Let’s participate in a thought experiment. Say we outlawed private possession of firearms as you desire.

    First, how would we disarm this perp? Consider that he’s probably a career criminal with a record of multiple arrests and convictions (very few law abiding people wake up in the morning and say, “gee, I think I’ll commit a violent rape today!”). He’s already almost certainly a prohibited person who cannot purchase or even touch a firearm under our current gun control laws (both state and federal). Why would your new laws be any more effective than our current ones? Countries with strict gun control regimes have not been successful in disarming criminals.

    Next, how would removing the gun from the equation change the situation? If a large, physically stronger man threatens a smaller 17 year old female with a club, baseball bat, knife, or fake airsoft gun, he’ll probably get compliance from the victim. After all, getting your throat slit is a nasty way to die too, and even unarmed there is a disparity of force that favors the man (unless the female victim is a skilled martial artist — and even then, the situation of her being surprised in close quarters probably doesn’t favor a judo move). Heck, if the attacker is concerned that he won’t have enough force with a knife, bat, or other weapon what would stop him from bringing a buddy? Two attackers have great odds of overpowering a single person taken by surprise.

    So, basically, the problem is that we have a career criminal out on the streets who is going to have a disparity of force advantage over his surprised victims. Taking away his gun — even if such a thing were possible, which I doubt — would not have changed the situation at all. Realistic solutions would be things like, “put away career violent criminals in jail” or “equip vulnerable individuals with training and defensive tools to remove the disparity of force.” Instead you want to pretend that an inanimate object is responsible for this attack.

    • I’m in favor of making things tough on criminals by making it tough for them TO BE criminals. That is what I am in favor of.

  2. So am I. What could be tougher on criminals then having to face “victims” who can fight back and prevent being victimized?

    I mean, what’s harder:
    – Finding a buddy and a club or sharp object to attack disarmed law abiding citizens.
    – Being ventilated by two rounds to the thoracic cavity from a law abiding concealed carrier.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: